I won't resign Scotland Yard boss tells MPs: John Yates gets backing of his boss and Theresa May

Met Assistant Commissioner John Yates was criticised for failing to reopen the files on the News of the World scandal in 2009

John Yates resisted calls to resign yesterday as MPs grilled him over his inquiry into phone hacking two years ago.

The Met Assistant Commissioner was criticised for failing to reopen the files on the News of the World scandal in 2009.

However, in a strong show of support, he was backed by Home Secretary Theresa May and his boss, Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson.

Mr Yates was among senior Met officers appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday to discuss their part in the various investigations.

Former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman was accused of being more ‘like Clouseau rather than Columbo’ when he first investigated the hacking five years ago.

Former Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke told the committee his officers considered their response to the hacking inquiry was proportionate when weighed against their fight to counter terrorism.

Mr Yates was flatly accused by MPs of being too close to the News of the World.

He was mocked for carrying out a review in July 2009 lasting just eight hours into the initial 2006 phone hacking inquiry and rapidly concluding the file should remain closed.

But the counter terrorism chief shrugged off a growing clamour for his resignation, joined most recently by Liberal Democrat peers Paddy Ashdown and Dee Doocey.

Revealing he too had been hacked, Mr
Yates laid the blame at the door of the News of the World which he
accused of obstructing police.

Share this article

He
apologised for his failures and said he wished he could ‘turn the clock
back’ but refused to take the rap for the actions of the Sunday
newspaper.

Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson publicly backed his colleague.

He said Mr Yates had an ‘excellent record in some very challenging areas’.

Sir
Paul added: ‘He currently undertakes one of the most difficult jobs in
UK policing, and is doing an outstanding job leading our fight against
terrorism.’

The Commissioner’s comments came after Mrs May also offered her support.

Mr Yates was visibly incensed as he faced a barrage of questioning at the hands of the MPs.

Chairman Keith Vaz led the charge. He
accused the senior officer of failing to examine several bin bags of
incriminating paperwork seized from the home of private detective Glenn
Mulcaire.

And he ended the gruelling session by telling Mr Yates his evidence was ‘unconvincing’.

Labour MP Steve McCabe accused Mr Yates of not being the ‘dogged, determined sleuth we would expect’.

Apologising
to the committee and victims of the scandal, Mr Yates admitted he made a
‘poor decision’ which he said looked even worse with the benefit of
hindsight.

But he said his ‘conscience was clear’ and said it would be a ‘sad business’ if people could never make any mistakes.

Mr Yates was asked if he had ever accepted money from newspapers for information.

Firmly denying the suggestion, he
said it was an ‘amazing question’ but went on to admit it is ‘highly
probable’ other officers have taken bribes.

Mr Hayman responded to a similar question with an extraordinary outburst of anger directed at MPs.

He said: ‘Good God. Absolutely not. I cannot believe you have suggested that. I’m not going to let you get away with that. That is not fair.’

Mr Hayman, who has gone on to work for the News of the World’s sister paper The Times, was challenged over his relationship with News International.

He admitted dining with journalists but said it would be ‘ridiculous’ to suggest he gave away sensitive information.

Mr Vaz forced an apology out of Mr Hayman for an earlier attack on Lord Prescott for ‘ranting’ about the initial phone hacking inquiry.

The Labour MP said he would let Mr Hayman’s words ‘speak for themselves’ and observed: ‘All this seems more like Clouseau than Columbo’.

Mr Clarke, who once led Britain’s day-to-day counter terrorism response, spoke publicly for the first time about his role in the 2006 inquiry.

He said he was ‘utterly appalled’ at the scale of the hacking and insisted there was never any ‘meaningful co-operation’ from News International.

In a prepared statement, Mr Clarke explained why the original inquiry did not expand to include all the evidence available to police.

He said other operations combating terrorists were more important than privacy breaches by phone hackers.

EX-DPP ACCUSED OF BUNGLING FIRST INQUIRY

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, faces criticism over his handling of the original phone hacking inquiry.

Senior police officers claim it was the Liberal Democrat peer’s legal advice that sealed a decision to drastically limit the scope of the 2006 investigation.

The QC is accused of agreeing to a narrow definition of what made someone a victim of phone hacking while head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

As a result thousands of names found at the home of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were effectively ignored by police.

Lord Macdonald was consulted by detectives over how far they should delve into the evidence they recovered.

Police claim prosecutors ruled they needed to prove that not only had a voicemail been intercepted, but that this had been done before it was heard by the intended recipient.

This led them to putting forward only a handful of potential victims when the case came to court.

The exact nature of the advice has since been hotly contested by Lord Macdonald’s successor Keir Starmer. He denies prosecutors restricted the inquiry.

Further questions were raised last week when it emerged Lord Macdonald is acting for the board of News Corporation, who shut down the News of the World.

Sir Paul Stephenson said the barrister personally handed ‘smoking gun’ documents to the Metropolitan Police last week. These allegedly showed how corrupt protection officers accepted cash for highly sensitive information about the Royal family.

But Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, said he is only advising the newspaper on disclosure.

He spoke slowly, as yielding as a slice of stale cake

By QUENTIN LETTS

Show trial time! Three top coppers appeared in front of Keith Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee, to be treated not much better than Victorian cut-throats.

In the case of at least one of them, this was not entirely surprising, because he did look like a snivelling Dickensian villain. But there is a line between firm inquiry and a lynch mob and Mr Vaz’s outfit nearly crossed it.

The witnesses – I almost said ‘suspects’ – were John Yates, Peter Clarke and Andy Hayman (the sniveller).

All three have had some hand, at
various points in recent history, in Scotland Yard’s bungled
investigation of the phone-hacking saga. Messrs Clarke and Hayman are
retired but Mr Yates is Assistant Commissioner of the Met.

For
some reason, he was not in uniform. Such is Westminster’s frenzy, its
near-drunkenness at the defenestration of Rupert Murdoch, that a packed
room cackled and crackled throughout the hearing. Mr
Yates was first to be interrogated. Yates of the Yard is not,
outwardly, an emotional man. He speaks softly and is about as yielding
as a slice of stale sponge cake.

Beforehand
there was a rehearsed stunt when Julian Huppert (Lib Dem, Cambridge,
beard like Lenin) asked Mr Vaz what happened to witnesses who lied. Mr
Vaz said they could be summoned to the very Chamber of the Commons,
there to be punished.

Was such staged showmanship necessary?

Some
experts in this bafflingly intricate scandal believe Yates of the Yard
has not told the whole truth in the past. Mr Yates (who is not liked by
MPs for his cash-for-honours investigation) denies this.

The
warning about the consequences of misleading Parliament was within the
rules but something in me bridled. Give the man a chance to say his
piece first, surely.

Mr
Vaz kept interrupting Mr Yates, hurrying him, hassling, steamrollering.
Good, brisk chairmanship? Or the actions of a politician playing to the
gallery?

Mr Yates
somehow managed to keep his cool. He did not even explode when a Tory,
Lorraine Fulbrook (Ribble Valley), bluntly asked if he had ever accepted
bribes.

Why should Mrs Fulbrook not ask her bribes question? Well, MPs recently deplored a newspaper for doing a ‘fishing expedition’ on MPs’ probity. Was Mrs Fulbrook on anything better than a fishing expedition? MPs can hardly complain about smears if they indulge in them themselves.

Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda), who is not on the committee, kept laughing loudly from gallery seats. Not great, really.

If Parliament is to be respected as the defender of liberties it should give individuals a calm hearing, no matter how great the political din.